Best Practice Report


Monitoring and evaluation / Institutional arrangements

3. Institutional arrangements

Establish institutional arrangements for green growth monitoring and evaluation that are accountable, transparent, clear, and integrated with existing monitoring and evaluation systems.

Robust institutional arrangements are crucial for M&E to be able to impact on policy. Key institutional qualities include legitimacy, relevance, transparency, inclusivity, flexibility, and reliability. Because green growth M&E systems will be tracking long-term transformative change in the economy and environment, the institutional arrangements need to be robust – sustainable and resilient in the face of political or other shocks – and efficient in terms of use of human and financial resources.

Accountability and transparency should be priority principles of any institutions charged with monitoring and evaluating green growth programs and strategies. In order to ensure the standard for evaluation and for those conducting evaluation, professional associations such as the American Evaluation Association, the German Evaluation Association and the International Development Evaluation Association have developed codes of conduct and evaluation standards that can be used as tools to ensure a minimum level of reliability, independence, and methodological rigor.

Independence and autonomy are key factors for institutions carrying out evaluation (Holvoet et al., 2012 and Morra-Imas and Rist, 2009). This is why most intergovernmental organizations, such as the World Bank, UNDP, and the Global Environment Facility, have evaluation offices that are independent of the operational work of the organization and report directly to the governing bodies, not to the management of the organizations.

M&E systems should make data and results accessible in a timely, useful format and language for stakeholders (Casillas and Kammen, 2012 and Stiglitz et al., 2009). This is especially true of green growth M&E systems, which involve many stakeholders from diverse sectors and positions. Transparency helps ensure that indicators and data are interpreted and used correctly and that decision makers and public stakeholders understand the implications (GGKP, 2013). The national aquatic policy in Denmark was characterized by exceptionally high transparency where data and methods were provided through a webpage for the action plan. This enabled significant public discussion and debate over the results which supported ongoing debates and policy change (Frederiksen and Larsen, 2013).